Madhya Pradesh HC: Prolonged Custody and Conclusion of Evidence Lead to Bail in Attempted Murder Case

In a decisive move to protect individual liberty where custodial interrogation is no longer requisite, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused facing attempted murder charges, emphasizing that the conclusion of material witness testimony removes the immediate risk of evidence tampering.

A single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta presided over the second bail application filed by the applicant. The Court was hearing a challenge to the continued incarceration of the applicant who was arrested in early 2026 for allegedly firing a shot with an intent to kill, involving offences under the BNSS and the BNS.

Considering the submissions regarding the period of custody and the fact that the investigation was complete, the Court decided to enlarge the applicant on bail.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the period of custody, but without commenting on the merits of the case, application is allowed. It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond..."

The Court has the following directions:
"i. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

ii. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv. The applicant shall not involve in any criminal activities in future and shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;

v, The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

vi. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be."

Background

The dispute originated from an incident where the applicant, along with a co-accused, allegedly fired a pistol at the complainant. This led to the registration of Crime No. 35/2026 under Sections 109(1) and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on July 28, 2026, by the High Court in M.Cr.C.No.27419/2026, with the liberty to renew the prayer after the statement of the injured party was recorded. During the current proceedings, the applicant’s counsel argued that the applicant had no criminal past, had been in custody since February 13, 2026, and that the injured witness had now been examined. The prosecution and the complainant's counsel opposed the bail. However, finding that no further custodial interrogation was needed and the trial would take time, the Court allowed the second bail application subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

Case Details:
Case No.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44052 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:32610
Case Title: Harendra Shukla Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Rajmani Bansal - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Anurag Sharma - PP; Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the complainant

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 36525